The annotation results are summarized in Table REF . Target words are ordered decreasingly according to the increase in metaphorically tagged contexts over time (last column). In addition to \(\kappa \)  we also give the share of items with perfect agreement (\(\%\)\(A\) ), since \(\kappa \)  underestimates agreement on rare effects [1]}. As you can see, the annotators overall confirmed our judgments of the targets, as most metaphoric targets are at the top of the list. Target words differ strongly in the strength of metaphoric change assigned to them: between \(82\%\)  (Donnerwetter) and -\(14\%\)  (Haube). Yet, most targets exhibit positive judgment, which we would expect from a test set containing metaphoric and stable targets. Striking is the position of Feder and Haube at the bottom, which are tagged even negatively metaphoric. This means that the share of metaphorically tagged contexts was higher for the earlier contexts. We conjecture that the reason for this is that both words were already used in other metaphoric meanings in earlier contexts. The high position of freundlich and fett presumably results from the fact that they are abstract adjectives. Metaphor identification for adjectives is more difficult than for nouns and verbs, because their meanings tend to be less concrete and precise [2]}. They are typically applicable to a wider range of entities, increasing the probability to encounter a context pair in our study with two uses differing in abstractness and preciseness. We will pay particular attention to the targets rated differently by us and the annotators in the analysis of the measures' predictions.
